A Short Global Survey of Dino Owners

Many members here have kindly been assisting me some academic research and I am (with Rob Lay's agreement) asking Dino owners (and former owners) to complete a short survey regarding their 246. There are just 10 questions and it will take a couple of minutes.

The survey is here:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=11102936170

There are no commercial interests involved at all and I have no connection to the motor trade, I'm an academic and a corporate financier.

Sharing the Results and Confidentiality:

I'm happy to share the aggregated results if anybody is interested (It is totally anonomous on the part of respondents and no data is captured about the individual)

Background:

The research is about a Nobel prize winning paper entitled "The Market for Lemons" by George Akerlof of University of Califiornia. The research revolves around the trading of assets that have uncertain quality prior to purchase. (e.g Old Ferraris) Background is here:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/articles/akerlof/index.html

If you are interested, I'm happy to discuss what we are doing.

Thanks

John Gilligan

 

Thanks for completing the survey.

I did think about which version to ask and plumped for year first sold because it's on the registration document (in the UK, not sure about other countries) and therefore I'd get fewer "Don't Knows".

jg

 

Site of first Christain Martyrdom in Britain - or 20 miles North of London by junction 8 on the M1 if you prefer!

thanks for all your help

 

Q:Compared with your expectation prior to purchasing the car WHEN THE VENDOR DELIVERED your (latest) 246 Dino Was the quality of the car

Much Better Than Expected -0%
Somewhat Better than Expected - 12%
As Expected - 76%
Somewhat Worse than Expected -12%
Much Worse Than Expected -0%

thank you to all who have completed the survey so far.

For those who wish to, it is here:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=11102936170

 

Given the number of 1980s restorations, you can never rely on any plate being where you'd expect it to be.

 

Q4:

Concours 6%
Very Good 39%
Good 29%
Average 13%
Below Average 0%
Poor 6%
Restoration Project 6%

thank you to all who have completed the survey so far.

For those who wish to, it is here:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=11102936170

 

Mark makes three points:
1. Economics is not a Nobel prize;
2. There are no nominations;
3. Papers don't win prizes, authors do.

Dealing with each:

The first point is technically correct, but is pedantic. The Economics prize is awarded at the same ceremony and uses the name Nobel with permission. The link takes you to the Nobel.se website for instance. So, the point is correct, but so what?

The Second point is not correct, but again it doesn't matter. In fact anyone can nominate anybody they like for a Nobel prize. The actual nomination process is here:

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/

The academy seeks nomintaions and also accepts nominations from anybody. It does not of course have to act on any of them. So get your mates to nominate you for a Nobel and stick it on your CV. It is meaningless as Mark says, but not for the reason he gives.

The third point is semantic: This is Akerlof's own quote from the link I gave:

"I wrote “The Market for ‘Lemons,’” (a 13-page paper for which I was awarded the Prize in Economics) during my first year as assistant professor at Berkeley, in 1966-67"

Clearly he won the prize, not the paper. Equally clearly he won it for a contribution that is entirely contained in a single paper.

To be clear, you do not win for a lifetime of achievement, you win for a specific contribution to a body of knowledge (often, but not always, contained in a single paper)- that's why you can win twice!

So, again correct, but not making any particularly important distinctions.

Anyway, thanks for replying, it keeps the thread alive and might get a few more responses to the survey itself!

jg

 

Mark

I understand your tongue is in your cheek, so is mine, but you have raised two issues that I ought to address.

The substantive things you have raised are:
1. Ethical approval for research;
2. I am not on the academic staff of Cranfield.

The former is an internal matter that the University takes very seriously. The policy summary is here:

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/ethics.htm

As a matter of clarification, I am not, as I have made clear, collecting any information on individuals at all. The reason to request (but not require) VIN/Registration, which are data about cars not people and cannot as far as I'm aware be tracked to any individual, is to reduce the probability of getting false responses.

You may be interested that the majority of people who have kindly replied to date have left an e-mail address and asked me to send the summary results, which of course I am happy to do.

The second point reflects the fact that, as I have said, I am a doctoral student at Cranfield, not a member of the faculty. You will find me listed here (or type "Gilligan" in the site search engine):

http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dba/biogs/index.asp

My faculty supervisor is Prof Sudi Sudarsanam.

http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/faculty/Showfaculty.asp?link=173

As an aside I do have a special academic appointment at the University of Nottingham, see below, but this research is not being undertaken through Nottingham.

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/Special29.html

Hopefully this clarifies all the issues you've raised about identity and research method.

As I said at the top, I requested permission from Rob Lay to undertake this and it is totally voluntary, so if you think it's either intrusive or indeed a waste of time, that's your right and you can ignore it. To those who do not think that, I again express my thanks for their help.

John Gilligan

 

Agreed!

 

Sorry to keep bumping it up, but just a couple more and I'll have 50 responses from around the world, so if any of you who haven't filled it in could please give 2 minutes of your time?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=11102936170

I'll put up a summary early next week.

jg

 

I understand the observation and to agree with you to some extent, however, the data wasn't only collected via FChat, there were seperate sources where this might not be the case.

Having said that the general point that people who buy 30+ year old Ferraris are probably more informed and/or passionate about the car is a good one and may begin to explain the data.

jg

 

I have been asked by a couple of people who couldn't complete the survey (as they weren't owners of 246s) what the results were.

Appended is the data to date and some of the analysis. As the project is ongoing, I won't include the commentary that I sent to the participants at this point.

It might be interesting to see what others make of it without knowing what we were looking for!

jg
Image Unavailable, Please Login